Ticketing Myths
Two years ago, we wrote about the DOJ’s newly filed antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. At the time, we felt that much of the press coverage was conflating consumer anger over ticket prices with the actual market dynamics. Two years later, the case split into two different outcomes: in March, the DOJ settled with a set of relatively mild remedies, while a coalition of states proceeded to verdict. On April 15, a jury ultimately found Live Nation liable on three counts of monopoly behavior. Once again, we believe a lot of the reporting of the situation is misstating the key points.
In our view, there are three misconceptions or omissions worth flagging:
1) The case was not, at its core, about high ticket prices and junk fees.
The face value of tickets is set by artists and their teams and is generally tied to the supply/demand dynamics for a particular performer. Ticketing fees are added on by Ticketmaster and their rivals such as AXS because they are competing for a different scarce asset: the venue ticketing relationship, which is frequently won by offering venues meaningful upfront economics that are later recouped through fees. The jury did not find that prices were simply “too high”. Rather, it found that the structure of the market - the interplay between promoters, ticketers, and venues - was anticompetitive. The widely cited $1.72 per-ticket overcharge was a narrow jury calculation tied to consumers in 22 states, not a measure of total consumer harm or the likely post-remedy price relief.
2) The “missing” role of the secondary market.
As we noted in 2024, a meaningful amount of the fan anger associated with ticketing is frustration created in the resale ecosystem. Resale prices for in-demand events can sit far above face value and secondary platforms routinely layer on very heavy fees. Speculative listings and scalper bot activity further skew the consumer experience. None of these dynamics were on trial and are rarely covered by the media. In effect, the focus on Live Nation has given the secondary market cover just when more scrutiny is warranted.
3) Misunderstanding of the potential impact of a Live Nation/Ticketmaster break up.
While the remedies in the state case will be decided separately, speculation is once again growing around a potential breakup of Live Nation. This would not, in our opinion, lead to lower consumer prices, lower fees, or more power shifting back to independent venues. In one scenario, a standalone Ticketmaster - without access to Live Nation's content pipeline and sponsorship revenue to subsidize bids - may end up with less strategic and financial flexibility to write large checks to independent venues, which may ironically put those venues at a disadvantage to Live Nation-owned venues.